US warmer to North Korea

Page Tools

South Korea's "sunshine" policy towards North Korea draws its
name from one of Aesop's fables: the wind and the sun compete to
force a man to take off his cloak. The wind tries to blow the coat
off, but the man shivers and grips the cloak tightly around him.
But when the sun shines, the man takes off his cloak because of the
warmth. The moral is obvious, yet the Bush Administration has found
it less than compelling. It has been openly dismissive of the
"sunshine" approach in trying to have North Korea dismantle its
nuclear weapons program. However, after years of fruitlessly waving
a big stick instead, Washington's approach appears to be
changing.

The sunshine policy was an initiative of South Korea's former
president, Kim Dae-jung. He thought interaction with the
totalitarian North Korea - not just by South Korea, but by other
significant players such as the US and Japan - might succeed where
isolating it had manifestly failed. Ever-tightening sanctions had
certainly made the North Korean people suffer, but had not fazed
North Korea's president, Kim Jong-il and his military regime, which
exerts absolute control over daily life. The world got behind the
policy - Bill Clinton was a strong supporter - and Kim Dae-jung met
Kim Jong-il in the northern capital, Pyongyang, in June 2000, the
first meeting between any leaders of the two Koreas.

Five years on, the optimism is decidedly faded. That is partly
because of the hostility and intransigence of the North; partly
because of a lack of will in the South; and largely because of
changed attitudes in the US. The year 2000 also saw the Clinton
administration replaced by that of George Bush. The US turned on
the chill wind. Talk of sunshine was soon replaced by references to
an axis of evil, with North Korea at its centre, precipitating a
sudden collapse in communication. The Bush Administration took the
uncompromising line that cosying up to a brutal dictator such as
Kim Jong-il was not only morally repugnant, but ineffectual. Its
greatest concern was that North Korea had nuclear weapons and was
peddling the materials and technical expertise beyond its borders.
Washington insisted Pyongyang must not be offered any concessions
for decommissioning its nuclear arms program; it would set a
terrible precedent to reward illegal behaviour. North Korea has not
budged.

But the sunshine policy seems to be making a comeback. The US
has endorsed a South Korean plan to run electricity from its power
plants straight into the North's grid, if the North agrees to
dismantle its nuclear weapons program. The US had been cool about
the idea but the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, now calls
the offer "significant". It is an encouraging sign, with North
Korea due to rejoin disarmament talks next week after boycotting
them for the past year. Looking beyond that, the US needs to ask
itself what has been gained in the stand-off with North Korea.
Might it not achieve more by restarting the direct dialogue between
the US and North Korea that was silenced when the Clinton
administration left office?

Speed humps for P-platers

Youth and petrol are a heady cocktail. Add testosterone and the
mix is potentially lethal. Only 15 per cent of drivers are under
26, yet they figure in 36 per cent of road deaths - and 79 per cent
of the young drivers involved in those fatalities are male. The
attraction of young men to powerful cars is so strong it might be
genetic. So the NSW Government's attempt to restrict P-plate
drivers to less-powerful cars sounds like good sense. But the NRMA
is not convinced.

The NRMA's president, Alan Evans, thinks the new restrictions go
too far. P-platers are banned from driving vehicles with eight or
more cylinders or high-performance six-cylinder engines. Also
banned are turbocharged or supercharged engines and some engine
modifications. The list of banned cars runs to 100 pages and
includes many everyday vehicles, not just big-engined sports cars
and muscle cars. Mr Evans rightly complains that many of the
vehicles now prohibited for P-platers have better safety features
than some of the less-powerful cars which P-platers are allowed to
drive.

The NRMA's opposition is not new. As far back as February, the
motoring organisation came out against any wide-ranging ban on
high-powered vehicles for P-platers. It said only turbocharged and
supercharged vehicles should be prohibited, demanding more research
to establish the connection between the power of a car and
accidents. However, Victorian authorities believe there is such a
link. In 1990, VicRoads banned powerful cars for P-platers as part
of a package of restrictions on probationary drivers. It says the
measures have cut deaths among probationary drivers by a quarter,
though it cannot say how much the ban on powerful cars has
contributed to the package's overall success. Still, VicRoads
maintains that overseas research confirms novice drivers in
high-performance cars tend to take greater risks and drive at
higher speeds, contributing to more crashes. NSW should move
quickly to fill the void with evidence of its own. In the meantime,
P-platers - and the parents who so often provide their cars - will
have to battle with the long and contentious list of banned
high-powered cars. Many P-platers will find they have to seek
special exemptions to drive cars belonging to other family members
or confront the expense of buying their own car.

There are certainly difficulties in deciding what cars to ban
and how the bans should be enforced. However, such administrative
problems are not, in themselves, an argument for giving
probationary drivers unrestricted access to powerful cars. The bans
should stay; young lives may depend on it.